Streetsblog’s Comment Moderation Policy: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
by Judd WileyJune 12th, 2008, 11:07 pm
This evening, I logged onto Streetsblog - as I like to do every few days - to check in on our revolutionary bicycle-riding friends who take themselves so ser…
Hold on. The whole look and feel of the website has changed … Less edgy. Less youthful. Older. More serious. More solemn. More … non-profit.
There’s the new depressing black banner across the top of the page, somberly informing us that Streetsblog is one small part of a larger movement. There’s Streetsfilms. Streetswiki. The LiveableStreets Network.
There’s the prominently displayed “Events Calendar,” where you can learn about all the fun events that Mark and Aaron and the rest of the staff want you to go to … “Bike Driver’s Ed” … “Conference: Toward Carfree Cities” … “Managed Use Lanes Study – Public Meeting.”
There’s the contact page with the phone number, fax number, street address. Like a real grownup organization.
And, finally, there’s … (long drumroll) … Streetsblog’s official “Comment Moderation Policy.”
Anyone who’s ever left a comment on Streetsblog and watched that comment disappear a few minutes later, knows exactly what I’m talking about.
You can almost see them right now. Aaron, Brad, Ben & Company, sitting in some big loft underneath an avant garde painting of Mark Gorton, sipping Pabst Blue Ribbon, staring at the red-light camera feed, and …
BAM!
… some unbeliever leaves an inappropriate comment about how they’re full of crap and then scramble scramble HIT THE DELETE BUTTON! HIT THE DELETE BUTTON!
If you click on the “Comment Moderation Policy” link, you arrive at the following three paragraphs:
Streetsblog is a moderated forum. We work hard to maintain a high level of quality and collegiality in Streetsblog’s comments section. We may edit or delete ad hominem attacks, unnecessary or uncreative profanity, off-topic posts, lengthy or poorly written rants, flat-earth arguments and comments that we feel don’t add any real value to the conversation that’s underway.
Commenters who use a real name or established identity and have participated for some time in the online community will generally be given much more leeway than those who post anonymously. If you’re a regular commenter, we encourage you to become a member of the Livable Streets Network.
We prefer that the Streetsblog comments not become a Livable Streets advocacy echo chamber. We encourage debate and are happy to see opposing viewpoints intelligently expressed and cogently argued in the comments section.
I have to hand it to Streetsblog. These guys really know how to not have a good time.
There’s something exhilarating, invigorating, and just plain fun about pure, unadulterated, unmoderated, untidy, verbal combat. Transportation is an important issue. Our battleground is the Internet. Our weapons are our opinions, our philosophies, our worldviews … our ideas.
Sure, some moderation is appropriate. Racism, bigotry, profanity. The F word. The N word. The C word. The S word. Descriptions of excretory and sexual functions. Comments that spread false, unsubstantiated rumors about other people. Stuff that you wouldn’t want to expose your kids to.
But removing ideas that you don’t agree with? Removing facts and logic that pick apart your arguments? It’s actually a very strange, foreign, incredible (in the literal sense of inspiring disbelief) concept. It’s essentially a big fat sweaty hairy F You to all those who don’t agree with your talking points.
And the characterizations! “Flat-earth arguments!” “Lengthy or poorly written rants!” “Comments that we feel don’t add any real value to the conversation that’s underway!”
The “flat-earth argument” formulation is really quite a hoot. Derk and I have been called flat-earthers by everyone we know for quite sometime – our co-workers, our friends, our wives. Mostly on the subject of global warming, but other things too. We are actually proud of this characterization. But who are the real flat-earth people here? Those who debate the issues, or those who hide behind a “Comment Moderation Policy”?
“Lengthy or poorly written rants.” So if we add too much evidence, Aaron Naparstek removes our comments? Is he trying to be like Bill O’Reilly, who mandates that all viewer comments are “pithy”? And if we all didn’t go to Princeton or Yale or Columbia like the Streetsbloggers and therefore can’t spell our they’re’s properly, Brad Aaron removes our comments?
“Comments that we feel don’t add any real value to the conversation that’s underway.” That’s basically a get out of jail free card that you can use anytime, anywhere. It justifies the removal of just about anything. Rephrased: “If you write something that we don’t like, we will erase it.” Further rephrased: “Booo. You suck.”
Every time Lewis and I try to leave a comment on Streetsblog, we write something like: “Hey, Streetsblog. We think you’re wrong in this post because of A, B, C, D, and E.” Well … Flat-earth argument! (DELETED) Too long-winded, Lewis! (DELETED) Not helpful to the larger discussion! (DELETED) You’re mean! (DELETED) Waaaaaaaaaaaaa! (DELETED)
So sad, so pathetic, so weak, so wussified, so pitiable, so … un-American.
And then the last line: “We encourage debate and are happy to see opposing viewpoints intelligently expressed and cogently argued in the comments section.” (But if we disagree, you get the hook.)
It’s bad enough that the weenie brigade wants to tax, regulate, and plan the automobile out of existence. Now they’ve come right out and actually admitted that they delete comments they don’t agree with.
Derk and I are going to have a lot of fun mocking, ridiculing, berating, harassing, and disrespecting Streetsblog in the coming years. It’s becoming very clear that these are the same people we used to beat up in third grade.
The Streetsblog Truth Squad
- Part 1: Car Haters: Streetsblog
- Part 2: Pete at Streetsblog: “Few Ideas” at Commuter Outrage
- Part 3: Who Is Mark Gorton?
- Part 4: StreetsBlog: StreetCritiques
- Part 5: Pick Your Poison - Gas, Guns, or Elitism
- Part 6: Streetsblog’s Comment Moderation Policy: Waaaaaaaaaaa!
- Part 7: A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words
- Part 8: Bike Box?
Posted in Uncategorized Rage |
I’ve been waiting for you guys to cover this particularly sad aspect of Streetsblog. I’ve tried to write comments there before and theyve been deleted. Nothing with swear words or racism. Just comments that disagreed with them strongly. All taken down within 5 min. Its actually kind of totalitarian.
there like the people who troll wikipedia all day and night looking for inappropriate entries to delete. GET A LIFE
There’s been an events calendar and contact information on Streetsblog for a long time.
sharon - I won’t defend the strictness of streetsblog’s comment moderation policy, but if you’ve ever run a blog or message board, comment moderation is part of your responsibility if you want it to be a success.
Of course you need a comment moderation policy.
Swear words, defamation, racism, spam.
But flat-earth arguments? Lengthy rants? Comments that don’t add value?
What’s that about?
I dont speak for judd, but I think his point with the calendar and contact info in that About section is that streetsblog at least used to feel somewhat down to earth and more like a blog. Now it feels like some kind of joyless 501(c)(3) with a very very serious mission statement and comment moderation policy that won’t tolerate any fun. I can see what he’s saying.
Streetsblog is a joke. I tried leaving a comment there once. It was only a paragraph long, it wasn’t a rant, and I thought I made a good argument. I made sure it posted on the site (you know how it takes a while and then you have to type in the letters on the upper left hand corner?). I came back the next morning to see if anyone had responded. My comment was gone. How does this kind of childish behavior help spawn a movement. Shouldn’t these Streetsbloggers want to debate these ideas? Shouldn’t they want to convince guys like me that they’re right? I’ll never leave a comment on their page again.
Judd,
Thanks for bringing this up. This is absolutely outrageous. I would be more than pissed at this Stalinist behavior if the tools that ‘moderate’ Streetsblog didn’t spend their days putting their fingers in their armpits and smelling them.
You should thank God for your adversaries - they’re ruining themselves.
To our readers, let it be known that thus far, we have NEVER removed a single comment - whether for, or against us.
If you want to see some of the “against us” comments - check out our “Praise” page.
Good stuff.
they think there the new york times which has some GRAND POOBAH who sits on a throne and moderates all the comments to make sure there “appropriate” whatever THAT means
Wow I had no idea they delete comments. I sometimes read Streetblog but have never left a comment before. (to be honest, I usually don’t read comments in general) I’m wondering if this type of thing happens a lot in the blogosphere? You leave a comment on some controversial blog, and then they delete your comment if they don;t agree with you? I think that’s lame b/c the best way to refine your argument is to engage in a debate with the other side. What Streetblog is doing here is trying to make it seem like there’s this massive movement of people who want less cars, and that no one disagrees with them. THat’s intellectually dishonest and also bad tactics, because it means that from now on the other side (like you guys) will be able to brush off Streetblog as kool-aid drinkers who have no desire to have an honest debate over the issues. Thats too bad because congestion a very important issue.
This is actually quite funny. After re-reading my post, I checked our spam filter queue and discovered a half dozen real (not spam) comments that had been held by accident because there were too many links in them, etc. I’ve released all of them, and am working to make sure this never happens again. Apologies to any readers (Ian, The Daily Commuter, Person With a Brain, etc.) who’s comments were delayed in posting.
Well, they’re doing something right. Streetsblog’s comments section is, for the most part, outstanding. I find it to be one of the few politically-oriented blogs out there where you actually do find issues debated and discussed with real depth and intelligence — and dissent. City Council members, State Assembly members, agency officials and policy experts regularly pop in to explain and argue positions with readers. There are commenters with contrarian viewpoints who regularly and happily participate. I actually learn things in the Streetsblog comments section. Unlike this blog and most others, you rarely seen the Streetsblog comments section turn in to a cesspool or an inane screaming match. It’s actually worth reading. If the moderators are helping to make that happen, good for them.
Take a Lesson -
Show me one instance where this blog’s comments section has degenerated into a “cesspool or an inane screaming match” - the only ones you’ll find are incidentswhere Streetsbloggers come to leave posts (see the “praise” section).
We leave those posts up to illustrate the lack of depth in the other side’s arguments.
Judd and I always respond with thoughtful, balanced arguments. Why should Streetsblog stifle ridiculous opinions? Let the other side make fools of themselves; it only helps your cause.
For the record, the comments that we have posted on Streetsblog which were removed were not overly sarcastic, mocking or belligerent - they expressed exactly the contrarian viewpoints that you seem to value.
It’s one thing to leave up the contrarian points that you have ready made talking points to refute - it’s another to leave up all of them - even the ones that make you squirm.
If Streetsblog has such a good message and such a valid position, politicians and policy experts will still frequent it. Streetsblog doesn’t take tough comments down to keep these people online, they take them down because they challenge Streetsblog’s vision in ways that they don’t have snappy answers for.
the following comment isn’t really related to this post but i just want to address the bicycle issue.
i don’t have a problem with cycling as a leisure sport or a way to enjoy the park with a friend or significant other but i don’t care for bicyclists in the city. they at times ride their bikes on the sidewalk when it’s for people who walk. and i get annoyed with the fact that they don’t abide by traffic rules like stop on the red light. i’m not saying all are like this, but most are. as far as i am concerned, bikes are vehicles too and vehicles should stay on the road meant for vehicles to travel in and if you’re traveling with a vehicle, you should abide by traffic rules and not zoom past the red light.
i’ve witnessed a bike messenger hit a woman as she got off the bus, and he thought he was going to get away but stand-byers stopped him from fleeing. what the hell was the messenger thinking that he can just sneak between the bus and the sidewalk where the bus driver pull into to let the lady off. the police and ambulance were called in.
i’ve witnessed many bicyclist related incidents and each time, the bicyclist always has this entitlement about him, like they didn’t do anything wrong. it’s been documented that bicyclists have killed pedestrians, click the link below for a related article albeit it is from 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301735.html
Are you kidding, Lewis? I’m not even talking about your comments section. Your blog is the cesspool. Your posts are the inane screaming match.
We don’t have to look far for an example. There is this very post. It really has nothing to say about any policy issue relevant to commuters. All you’re doing here is attacking some other blog’s comment moderation policy. Almost everything on your blog is angry, outraged, personal and attack-oriented.
And that’s fine. Emotional venting is an OK use of the blog medium. But given the tenor of your own blog posts, it doesn’t surprise me one bit that your stuff is being deleted from Streetsblog’s comments section. They just have a much higher quality level of discussion over there than what you guys seem capable of.
If you can find a way to talk about issues and policy without getting angry and personal, I’m sur
…If you can find a way to talk about issues and policy without getting angry and personal, I’m sure that your stuff will not be deleted and you will have a better time having your ideas considered and taken seriously by people who really think about and work on transportation policy issues.
Take a Lesson -
The name of the site is Commuter Outrage. This isn’t a forum for tempered expression; it’s a forum to vent on serious issues that provoke emotion. If that leads to rational discussion in the comments section - and if you read the comments, it often does - that’s great. But that’s not the primary purpose of the posts.
Your comment above says, “Unlike this blog and most others, you rarely seen the Streetsblog comments section turn in to a cesspool or an inane screaming match.”
So again, I stand by my challenge - find one instance in our comments section that is a cesspool or inane screaming match that isn’t a Streetsblogger attacking us. Judd and I always post rational and thoughtful answers to legitimate questions or critiques that we get, and yes occasionally we poke fun at people, but you’ll notice, we address their serious concerns too, and it’s all in good humor. (compared to someone the other day who told me he hoped I would be macheted in Rwanda - thus illustrating our point that the opposition is often pointless and can only result to name calling).
As to your comment that the posts we have made on Streetsblog haven’t been impersonal or calm, here is an example (close) of a post I made that was deleted (this is in reference to a post on Streetsblog on Paris cargocycles, which I also wrote a post on):
“Your readers have been keeping us busy for the past couple of days, so I just dropped by to check out your site and see what was going on. I read this article about cargocycles. Are you guys serious about this? I mean come on, who needs 50 pounds of cheese? Is that really a solution?”
Now, I made that post weeks ago, and I’m obviously paraphrasing because I don’t have what I said exactly memorized, but I can assure you that this is an accurate representation of both the tone and content of my comment. I also think I complimented them on some of their legitimate points in other posts. No profanity, no scathing sarcasm, no completely disparaging content.
That’s a valid question that I would expect people to respond to if they expect to be taken seriously. I also think that’s a very reasonable starting point to start a discussion on that “issue” since every single person I have told this to has echoed the exact same critique to me immediately after I told them the content of the Streetsblog post before I even told them what I wrote.
Result - deleted.
So you tell me, where did I go wrong? What was so over the top about that post that required censorship?
Lewis,
I seriously doubt that that’s what you wrote.
You seem to acknowledge above that your own blog posts tend towards the inane and the screaming when you disclaim, “This isn’t a forum for tempered expression; it’s a forum to vent on serious issues that provoke emotion.
I have no idea why your stuff got deleted from Streetsblog. But if your comments there were anything like your blog posts here, I imagine that the Streetsblog editors has reasonably good cause to delete you. From what I’ve seen so far, your stuff tends to be hostile in tone, long-winded, not all that well written and not particularly relevant beyond: Here’s Lewis reacting to whatever Lewis happened to read or do today. And who is Lewis? We don’t really know. Maybe he’s a lobbyist for the nuclear energy industry. Maybe he’s just some random, angry commuter who runs off to Rwanda every so often on business.
I have no problem if you want to semi-anonymously vent, spew and be an angry guy. But I can’t imagine why you’d assume that Streetsblog or anyone else to allow you to use their server for that purpose. Or why you think anyone else would want to read it.
Take a Lesson,
Unfortunately since Streetsblog deletes posts, you’ll never be able to see what I actually wrote, but again, I assure you that the tone and content almost exactly mirrored what I wrote above. You can choose not to believe me on this, but its is irrelevant either way for the following reason:
My contention, and Judd’s based on his post above, is what difference would it make if I was belligerent in my comment? Doesn’t it make more sense for Streetsblog to allow me to make a fool of myself? Doesn’t that help them to win the argument? If my post was so offensive, what’s wrong with Streetsblog deleting it, but putting up their own post with a disclaimer saying: “we got a post that was too offensive to allow, but it raised a valid point - so this is who needs $50 worth of cheese…”
That preserves whatever sense of cordial atmosphere that Streetsblog is trying to maintain, addresses a common and serious critique of one of their posts, and would also allow them the added benefit of taking a jab at me without having to let me speak for myself.
Instead, they simply delete it with no mention, and no one gets to hear a real discussion of the issue. Go to that Streetsblog post on Cargocycles. Look at the comments below it. Then read my post on the Cargocycles and see how many of the obvious flaws with Cargocycles that I pointed out are discussed at all. None.
Belligerence and sarcasm aside, that’s not an honest debate on the issue over at Streetsblog no matter how you cut it. And I can assure you that if Streetsblog is pulling readership and influence, which it is, all of the public policy people and politicians aren’t going to shy away from participating in the debate because a few loud mouths put their ignorance on display.
As far as my tone in comments over here goes, if you read my comments - not posts - throughout this site you’ll see that I have no problem being level headed and engaging in honest debate.
I don’t see why you find it so difficult to accept that you could take on one persona in a post, but another in a comment. However, I will say two things: First, I don’t expect anyone to allow me to use another forum to serve as Lewis Derkins’ personal mouthpiece - not Streetsblog or anyone. I’m willing to accept the rules of conduct on the other sites that I visit, and I do. Second, if the tone of my posts offends you, or anyone else, you’re more than welcome not to read it. But based on the fact that people like you continue to come here to tell me what a fool I am day after day, I must be striking a nerve somewhere because people are reading it.
Doesn’t make any sense to me, Lewis.
If your post was offensive, stupid, uninteresting, off-topic or deemed otherwise unworthy why would a moderator bother to highlight it or spend extra time writing a rebuttal or disclaimer for it and leave it online for other readers to waste their time on it?
There are dozens of articles, ideas, web sites and issues to highlight or discuss on any given day. And there are countless idiots who are happy to post belligerent and anonymous comments on other people’s blogs. Why let the lowest common denominator set the agenda? Why spend time on those people?
The only blogs I bother reading are the ones that filter the crap for me. I want that. I don’t need to read some ranting idiot or some guy who is mainly interested in beating up other people and “winning” arguments in the comments section.
@ Take a lesson,
“The only blogs I bother reading are the ones that filter the crap for me. I want that. I don’t need to read some ranting idiot or some guy who is mainly interested in beating up other people and “winning” arguments in the comments section.”
If you think that this blog is a cesspool, why are you continuing with the exchange, and contributing to the expansion of the “cesspool” especially if this blog isn’t something you would waste your time on.
So, something about this blog and/or comment and/or post got your attention.
You’re certainly entitled to having your opinion and luckily you can share them on this particular blog unlike Streetsblogs who may delete your comments where they see fit.
I think it’s kind of ironic that you’re going on about this argument with Lewis defending Streetsblogs regulations on leaving comments on their blog when you are contributing to the points Lewis is making and at the same time kind of contradicting yourself:
1. As far as I have read, Commuter Outrage is an open forum and did not delete your comments or anybody else’s comments that is contrary to their opinions and thoughts.
2. Lewis continues to converse with you intelligently and in a calm demeanor, not resorting to rants and the desire to win an argument, or turning it into a cesspool.
3. For someone who claims that they don’t want to waste their time with rants and idiots, and “winning” arguments, you’re certainly not keeping yourself away from this particular post unless you want to win the argument.
Judd and Lewis are entitled and have the right to criticize or be critical of Streetsblogs or other commuter related issues because that is what this blog is about.
You, as a reader, have the ability to leave a comment agreeing or disagreeing with either Judd or Lewis or both and contribute to an open forum that can be an intelligent dialogue and not turn into a cesspool.
A blog and/or post can easily turn into a cesspool when people with opposing ideas and opinions do not make an effort to at least understand the other side. I don’t think that everyone has to agree with one another to have a meaningful conversation but I think you can learn a lot more when you hear the opposing arguments.
TDC -
I don’t think I could have said it better myself.
Take a Lesson -
I notice that you still don’t address the central point - who needs $50 worth of cheese is not off topic if you’re trying to sell cargocycles to me as a workable solution.
Fine if Streetsblog wants to delete offensive posts, I think that’s foolish and undermines their credibility, but it’s their choice. But, this is not a critique that is on the far fringes of the commentary about the cargocycle post - EVERY SINGLE PERSON that I have told about this post has made exactly the same critique to me.
If Streetsblog really wants to convert people to a bicycle lifestyle, then you need to address legitimate questions from people like me who don’t already believe. Until you do, you’re only preaching to the choir and your “movement” won’t move anywhere.
But you know what, I have another idea. I’m going to go to Streetsblog tonight and write the exact same comment in the exact same tone and we’ll see if it gets left up there. If it does, I’ll be interested to see what response it gets and how Streetsblog defines $50 worth of cheese as a solution.
I love how Take A Lesson writes “there are countless idiots who are happy to post belligerent and anonymous comments on other people’s blogs” (in an idiotic, belligerent, anonymous fashion).
Take A Lesson also writes: “I don’t need to read some ranting idiot or some guy who is mainly interested in beating up other people and “winning” arguments in the comments section.” Rephrased: “I don’t want to read comments from some contrarian who uses facts and logic to critique the worldview of my cherised Streetsblog.”
Regarding the $50 cheese. Go on ArtisanalCheese.com and look at the prices. $27/lb. $35/lb. $38.50/lb. (Like they couldn’t just round up to $39!) This is an extremely out-of-touch segment of the American population we’re dealing with here. They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.
Someone who pays $38.50/lb for a piece of cheese has no business telling working Americans how they can or cannot transport themselves to and from their jobs.
Lewis,
I have no idea what you’re talking about regarding the $50 cheese thing but am increasingly convinced that, whatever you wrote in the Streetsblog comment section, it was likely to be lengthy, incoherent, hostile, off-topic and worthy of being deleted.
Here’s a little news for you: Encouraging bike commuting and making improvements in urban bicycling infrastructure in North American cities really doesn’t require anyone to address Lewis Derkin’s questions in a blog’s comments section. America isn’t waiting for Lewis Derkins to be convinced. The movement is underway and $5 gas is doing all the convincing that needs to be done.
All this focus you guys have on Streetsblog suggests that you guys have no coherent vision of your own to put forward. You are essentially a reaction to that movement.
Take A Lesson,
The history of the $50 cheese.
Streetsblog published this post:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/05/22/the-latest-innovation-from-paris-cargocycles
To prove a point, the post linked to this NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/dining/16cheese.html
Lewis wrote a contrarian response on Streetsblog, which was removed.
So Lewis made his points here:
http://www.commuteroutrage.com/2008/06/02/streetsblog-streetcritiques
So I just did a very brief skim. As usual, Lewis is misinformed, long-winded, irrelevant and working off of assumptions not based on fact. It’s like you guys have a rant-first-ask-questions-later policy in place here. This is why it is probably more worth someone’s time to delete your comments rather than respond to them.
- The company that runs that cargo cycle doesn’t deliver cheese to the homes of wealthy Manhattanites. It delivers to restaurants. Restaurants order cheese in $50+ batches.
- So what if semi-trailers carry 32,000 lbs worth of cargo? No one is talking about cargo trikes replacing tractor trailers. Semis aren’t allowed on most side streets in NYC. Semis can’t park in Manhattan. Semis can barely move in Manhattan because of all the single-passenger vehicles that clog the streets and semi drivers hate driving in the city. Semis don’t do the local deliveries in Manhattan for the most part.
I think this “cheese” post is useful and utterly harmless and Lewis’s response is bizarre. The post points out that it’s possible and even desirable to do local delivery trips by bike in Manhattan. It seems like you guys are advocates for the motor vehicle. Wouldn’t it be better for you as a driver in NYC if we got more local deliveries done in these small, spatially-efficient cargo trikes rather than having our streets clogged with panel trucks making delivery runs of less than 3 miles?
Take A Lesson,
You write: “The company that runs that cargo cycle doesn’t deliver cheese to the homes of wealthy Manhattanites. It delivers to restaurants. Restaurants order cheese in $50+ batches.”
Look at their website: http://www.artisanalcheese.com/products.asp?dept=1040
Read the following direct quote:
As seen in the New York Times, Starting April 15, Artisanal Premium Cheese, purveyors of the world’s finest cheeses, in conjunction with Rickshaw Revolution will begin same day delivery to customers in midtown from 34th to 63rd streets, river to river. Look for coming expansion plans!
We Can Help You . . .
* Need a cheese course for a last minute dinner party?
* Hosting impromptu cocktail guests?
* Coordinating an office meeting?
* Bringing a hostess gift?
* Celebrating a success or simply indulging a craving for fine cheese?
Within hours Artisanal will fulfill your request, directly from five custom-designed cheese aging caves masterminded by the Artisanal Affinage staff. Choose from more than 200 selections of international premier quality artisanal cheese, from Humboldt Fog to Abbaye de Belloc; Sbrinz to Monte Enebro we have the cheese for every special occasion or evening relaxing at home.
The cargocycle rickshaw doesn’t deliver cheese to the homes of wealthy Manhattanites? What are you talking about?
Take A Lesson,
Your last points are valid.
Look, we have no problem with the cargocycle, or individuals and businesses that choose to use them. We’re not advocating for banning them, or substantially reducing their number through regulation, taxation, or planning. If someone wants to ride a cargocycle, that’s great.
We are pro-cargocycle in the same sense that we’re pro-car, pro-bus, pro-subway, pro-light rail, pro-long distance train, pro-airplane, pro-bicycle, and pro-walking. We believe that individual Americans should make their own transportation choices, without the government trying to move them in one direction over the other.
For example, we advocate for a massive expansion of subway, commuter, and long-distance lines into the suburbs (just as we advocate for a massive expansion of highways). Inside cities, things get tricky because you can’t keep expanding outwards. So make all options available on the existing space: sidewalks, bike lanes, motor vehicle lanes, subway lines.
We are very inclusive. Streetsblog is US vs. THEM. Their end state is to get rid of cars in cities. We think that’s wrong.
Judd,
Home delivery is a fraction of the trike’s business. They deliver to restaurants. They also do some catered events in Midtown, almost all of which are held in offices not homes. Have you ever considered interviewing people or giving them a call prior to one of your rants? It might help with the accuracy a bit.
Reading Lewis’s rant you’d think they’re biking $50 grilled cheese sandwiches to the Upper East Side for Thurston Howell the IV’s after school snack.
But who cares.
The point of the Streetsblog post, it seems to me, was to show that it’s possible to deliver cargo in Manhattan by trike, these cheese guys have found that it’s faster and cheaper and better for their business, and here’s a photo of them doing it.
If you and Lewis want to be outraged about that and write misinformed 10,000 word rants based on it, go for it. The world is a better place with you focusing your energies on harmless things like that.
Take a Lesson -
Encouraging bike commuting and making improvements in bike infrastructure does require valid and common questions to be addressed. My question was both valid and common. Without convincing taxpayers to fund your bike infrastructure, it isn’t going to happen, and as I’ve pointed out in other posts, Europeans and Asians suck up gas prices that are three to four times as high as ours without abandoning cars, so I wouldn’t take your little movement for granted. I haven’t seen any figures, but I would be surprised if you have even “converted” 1% of commuters to bicycles - and like I’ve also pointed out in posts and comments throughout this site, including the critique post on Cargocycles referenced above - wait until winter sets in and we’ll see how many people keep riding those new bikes they’re buying.
There is plenty of coherent vision on this site. Here’s a synopsis for you: fund all transportation alternatives to the maximum extent possible in accordance with usage patterns, eliminate government waste and single it out for mock and ridicule wherever it is found, and don’t surrender personal freedom and choice in your transportation to some government bureaucrat.
This site is no reaction to Streetsblog’s movement - though I admit we often disagree with them on their points. I could personally care less if New Yorkers want to bicycle everywhere. I don’t live there and I don’t pay taxes there. But I think New Yorkers deserve to be treated to a fair debate on issues that affect their realm of personal autonomy, as the transportation arena does, and Streetsblog doesn’t offer much more than naive cheerleading for bicycles.
The fact is, most New York commuters cannot commute with bicycles. They live too far away from work, have too many things to carry or do on the way, cannot afford to take the extra time, cannot show up to work drenched in sweat, or cannot physically do it. That is the cold, harsh reality staring down the bicycle commuter movement, and it has been there for decades.
I’m all for expanding the bike infrastructure, but I’m pragmatic about the fact that it doesn’t work for everyone.
Oh, and my mistake, semi-trailers can’t fit down the streets of Manhattan, a delivery truck can only carry about 11,000lbs vice 32,000. So instead of 80 cargocycles we’re replacing the towing capacity of one truck with 28 cargocycles. So a truck with a wheelbase of 115” would be equivalent to about 6 cargo cycles. What a great space saver those turn out to be considering that in the same space, you can haul one quarter of the cargo.
Take a Lesson –
If a cargocycle works for a small business, fine, more power to them. As Judd points out, this is exactly what we advocate. But this is hardly a solution that will work for every business in Manhattan. Streetsblog’s post is about treating this as a solution for the masses, which it simply isn’t.
It’s one thing for these things to deliver a catered lunch to some executives, quite another to deliver groceries to the store that supplies the catering company – guess which one does more business and needs more trucks? It’s also one thing for cargocycles to deliver high-end cheese to a fancy restaurant that only some people can afford to frequent, it’s another for them to deliver supplies to large restaurant chains. I can tell you right now, I worked in a restaurant all through college, and if we had been paying the kinds of transportation costs that you get from this type of service, we would have been out of business.
It’s nice if it works in a particular market or niche, but it isn’t a solution for everyone. That is the whole point of my critique, which Streetsblog deleted and has yet to respond to.
Lewis,
I think Take a Lesson simply has a vastly different world view as evidenced by his desire for strict moderation on blogs.
I think you and others here have voiced your preference for an ability to filter through comments and responding to them as they see fit. One person’s rant may be another’s cogently argued point. The reader will determine that and frankly that’s something I value at this site: The ability to filter through comments and arguments and decide for myself what’s relevant.
Some kind of moderation policy for racist and abusive language for example, is entirely appropriate. But wholesale deletion of comments because one person finds them irrelevant is backwards and not the kind of site I want to read. In the new era where the line between reader and opinion giver/maker is blurred, it only makes sense to allow free and open debate and allow readers to determine what’s a cogent argument, what adds to the conversation, and what doesn’t. Giving that power to some unaccountable group of moderators is amazingly shortsighted.
I stand by a recent comment on streetsblog: Stalinists would be proud.
*Correction of last sentence:
I stand by a comment made on streetsblog moderation policy: Stalinists would be proud.
I can’t wait until the internet is full of so-called ‘moderation policy’s” whereby someone else determines what I can read. Instead of the internet opening up the debate and shedding light on issues, blogs become mouthpieces for unchallenged views.
Koe,
I’m sensing a bright shining light emanating from that government cubicle. While we might not agree on everything, we are firmly aligned on this one.
I agree Koe, I’m sorry I called you a nose-picking bureaucrat earlier. But I still think you should get back to work.
lease trucks assume…
Sounds interesting but not for every one….
Check out the medievalist Cap’n Transit:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5862444008740250372&postID=9218045827203972534&page=1
Koe,
You are useless. Go back to school. Learn something. Then get a government job.
You’ll be great. Come in at 11 leave at 2. Two hours for lunch. Get nothing done. Suck our nation dry of resources when we need to compete globally.
Also, eggs, panackes and turkey sausage without syrup is my new fave.
G-d Bless.
See you at IHOP.
Mr Kaag